April 22, 2009

[Northwest Austin Utility District v. Holder] challenges Congress's reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006... But... Congress didn't engage in a serious empirical comparison of voting patterns in the areas of the country that are and aren't covered by the Voting Rights Act. The civil rights establishment was intent on preserving the status quo, which has led to the election of some African Americans in the South at the expense of the Democratic party as a whole; and ... neither Republicans nor Democrats were willing to acknowledge the evidence suggesting that discriminatory barriers to ballot access today, unlike the '60s, seem to be very rare....

[Ricci v. DeStefano is] the most controversial affirmative action case of the term, involving the promotion of firefighters in New Haven. In 2003, the city administered a promotion test. The test was validated by independent experts, as federal law requires, to ensure that it focused on job-related skills rather than purely cognitive ones. But, after the test was administered, none of the top-scoring candidates for 15 positions turned out to be African American. (Fourteen were white, and one was Hispanic.) ... [T]he city refused to certify the exam and promoted no one. The city was then sued by 19 white firefighters (and one Hispanic) led by Frank Ricci, a sympathetic 34-year-old white man. Ricci, who is dyslexic, spent more than $1,000 buying the study guides recommended by the city and paying an acquaintance to record them as audiotapes, which he listened to as he drove to and from work.

The Ricci case is a nightmare for moderate liberal supporters of affirmative action, because it presents the least sympathetic facts imaginable. The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that affirmative action is most troubling when its burdens are concentrated on a few innocent white people rather than being widely dispersed among a large group of white and black applicants....

If the Supreme Court strikes down part of the Voting Rights Act and the New Haven affirmative action program, [it] would force Obama to articulate a moderate, middle-of-the-road position on race that is rooted in empirical evidence rather than ideology....

With all the other problems facing the country--from the economy to the war on terrorism--Obama has no incentive to take on liberal racialists who believe we've made little progress on race since the 1960s or conservative color-blind partisans who insist that anti-discrimination laws are no longer necessary. But everything in Obama's background suggests that he has the inclination and ability to help the country transcend the extremes that have defined our racial politics for too long.

The Democratic machines that govern our big cities get around exams in which whites always overwhelmingly outscore blacks and hispanics by simply, you guessed it, not giving the exams. As positions open through the normal process of attrition blacks and hispanics are appointed to fill those positions on the basis of "merit." So it doesn't really matter how the Supremes vote in Ricci vs. DeStefano. Fairness marches on.

On another blog, however, I've had to listen to the argument that the same-sex marriage case in Iowa ought to be ignored because an advocacy group went out and found some sympathetic, appealing plaintiffs to front the case.

So I guess unfairly sympathetic plaintiffs are sort of like activist judges.

I understand why Ricci being sympathetic makes the case more difficult for supporters of discrimination based on race (yes, that's what "moderate liberal supporters of affirmative action" are), but, of course, this should be an easy case even if Ricci was just a capable white male SOB.

The gov't should not be discriminating against anyone based on race. This concept seems so easy.

The City of Chicago is paying out tens of millions of dollars in back pay and damages to White firefighters who were passed over for promotions to Lieutenant by minorities who scored lower on the tests.

But everything in Obama's background suggests that he has the inclination and ability to help the country transcend the extremes that have defined our racial politics for too long.Obama will take the cowards way out.

His TelePrompter will script him with "The Court has spoken!". And another difficult matter will be neatly wrapped up in worship of the Lawyers Dressed in Robes - who allow the President and Congress to duck the hard work of using the democratic process and The People to decide on policy.

Then he goes out and says either "whatever the Court wishes, it's above my pay grade" to audiences or oozes Bill Clinton "Oh, I feel your pain" to the losing faction.

The irony here is that every lawyer participating in the Ricci case (including, of course, the Supremes) will have taken LSATs and Bar Exams with about the same "disparate" results as those observed in the New Haven FD promotion exam.

The "affirmative action establishment" must believe that the Ricci plaintiffs have a good chance to lose in the Supreme Court. Otherwise they would have bought off the plaintiffs like they did in the Taxman litigation. Give them credit for excellent judgment, though. A loss in the Taxman case would have been close to the end of affirmative action, at least in post-hiring employment decisions.

By the way, JAC, your #13 is based on believing that Obama actually has the opinion in the quote you used. Believing in the truth of any assertion he makes with respect to issues of race and class is not a good idea.

I just said it was relevant; I didn't say we should believe whatever he says. I'm fine with you pointing out that we can't trust him to always give his honest opinion. I assume you were equally skeptical toward previous presidents' statements.

There are lots of suggestions from Obama's background. Many of them are conflicting and contradictory. Many people tried (somewhat successfully, obviously) to obscure Obam's opinions on many things, so the voters would think well of him.

The honest to God truth is very very few people - if any - know what Obama really thinks about anything, because what he says changes day to day. And sometimes quicker.

The Fourth of July fast approaches and the only realistic answer to America’s racial problem is government mandated racial interbreeding. Being a true patriot, and loving a good parade, I would be completely in favor of this so long as I get to be the guy who does the interbreeding. Some sort of title would be appropriate, I should think. Maybe First Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of the United States Department of Affirmative Insemination. Yank my doodle. It’s a dandy!

But everything in Obama's background suggests that he has the inclination and ability to help the country transcend the extremes that have defined our racial politics for too longNothing in this man's background suggests anything of the sort.

This is a man who sat in a church pew for 20 years and listened as the pastor who married Obama and how baptized Obama's children said over and over again G-d damn America.

This is a man who counseled ACORN.

This is a man who partnered with William Ayers to try and revolutionize (in the communist sense) the education of our children via the Annenberg Foundation.

This is a man who rose to the top in the most viral and corrupt Democrat political machine in America, Chicago.

Of all the descriptions that are apt in applying to Obama, transcending extremes is not one of them.

from the Opine Editorials:The selection process cannot be emphasized enough, I think. It directly reflects the political strategy used in the courtrooms.from Jennifer Roback Morse:This case, known as Varnum v. Brien, began with a half dozen same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses in Polk County, Iowa. The county clerk, acting in accordance with the law, refused. Mind you, the state of Iowa did not go bothering unassuming people who were minding their own business. This was a staged case. These couples went to the clerk’s office intending to be refused. They sued Timothy Brien, Polk County recorder and registrar, an ordinary county employee.

The plaintiffs, that is, the people who complained, were not exactly average citizens battling the big mean state of Iowa all by themselves. They had the backing of homosexual-rights establishment organizations. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund took in $20 million in 2007. Lambda Legal is a nonprofit devoted solely to bringing legal challenges like these. The Opine Editorials is an interesting little echo chamber that I stop by every now and then. Among other things, the bloggers at Opine promote the idea that same sex marriage is a form of segregation. Another recent line of argument is that the legal precedent regarding the presumption of paternity makes recognition of same-sex marriage impossible. At least that's what I think they are trying to say.

In a related post, one of their bloggers asks: Can someone please identify the sexual aspect, if any, on which Cady has based his opinion? How did he transform "same-sex" into "homosexual"? Is there a new legal requirement for homosexual attraction? I don't think you'll discover this in his reasoning. You might hope to read it into his remarks, but it is not there.I really don't know how to begin to engage a question like that.

There's "real outrage" over ACORN? Where?Right here. You're speaking (corresponding) with someone who is outraged by the actions of ACORN, who wonders, when he votes, if his franchise has been made irrelevant by the fog of false data created by their "canvassers"; with someone who is outraged that his taxes go to support professional rabble rousers with no demonstrable purpose except to foment unrest. You're speaking to someone who thinks "community organizer" should be a descriptive term for ministers, teachers, business owners, police and firemen-not a job title.

In other words, I'm genuinely outraged. I bet several other commenters here are genuinely outraged, and your labeling of our genuine grievances as "fake" is outrageous. It's downright offensive, in fact.

Actually many people are due to the power this quasi-criminal organization has amassed. On the South Side of Chicago, they are a force to be reckoned with. In other areas of the country they have amassed political power and have used it to push their particular agenda.

They are also funded heavily by SEIU, a union that has had its own problems with corruption and organized crime ties. I wonder if the members would be outraged to know where their union dues are really going?

When a sane person advocates that the 14th Amendment prohibits race-based hiring, admission, discrimination of any kind, that person is called "racist"But when a liberal calls for racial preferences for selected groups, they are called "racialists" - which is how Rosen describes them.

Haven't you been paying attention to the tea party movement? What do you think those people are outraged about?Would they feel stupid holding a sign out in the rain if you pointed out to them that the bogus claim that ACORN is receiving billions from the stimulus isn't even true?

"These are taxpayer funds, in an indirect method, being used to subsidize political activism," says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican and chairman of the conservative House Republican Study Committee. "I'm sure they're not going out and registering any Republicans."

bogus claim that ACORN is receiving billions from the stimulus isn't even true?

I said nothing about the stimulus bill, although it WAS in the bill that ACORN would be receiving money until the feces his the oscilating mechanism about it. They tried to hide it and burying it in the rest of the shit that ws in the unread bill, but they got caught....this time.

The truth is that some of ACORNs funding does come from federal sources, and people are angry about it. Really really angry and not just at Obama, also at Bush, Congress and the entire corrupt political class.

On another blog, however, I've had to listen to the argument that the same-sex marriage case in Iowa ought to be ignored because an advocacy group went out and found some sympathetic, appealing plaintiffs to front the case.

And you're mentioning this here because...? We are not responsible for policing the entire Internet for dumb remarks.

everything in Obama's background suggests that he has the inclination and ability to help the country transcend the extremes that have defined our racial politics for too long.

The two sides of this debate are:

(1): The side that wants racial preferences in favor of non-whites, and

(2): The side that wants no racial preferences at all.

You could perhaps call side #1 an "extreme". But side #2 is a neutral middle ground between the old extreme of pro-white racial discrimination and the new extreme of anti-white racial discrimination.

I have exactly zero interest in "transcending" the difference between government-sanctioned racism and color-blind government, because "transcending" in this case means nothing more than "ignoring". There is no "middle ground" between discriminating on racial grounds and NOT discriminating on racial grounds. It is binary; you either do it, or you don't.

I think we shouldn't do it. Maybe you think we should. But I don't want to transcend our differences; I want you to stop being a racist.

I don't understand your comment. It's true that the author of this blog is my mom. But the comments section is open to the public. Regardless of how you want to characterize my comments, I would be able to make them here even if she weren't my mom.

Just don't assume that the people here, because they don't keep mentioning ACORN, have no problem with the activities of ACORN. As you have seen quite a few do have problems with ACORN and its activities and at least one more, me, also has problems with ACORN. Their actions in Baltimore by breaking into homes that were foreclosed, their actions in the registering of voters using fake names, drugs as gifts to people who will register, giving bus tours of the homes of AIG executives, filing cases to force banks to give home loans to people who cannot afford them. Their actions are a direct slap in the face of fair elections in this country.

JAC,Just remember that some people here cannot or will not read properly. Put it in its proper perspective. Fight fire with fire and insult with injury. you will feel so much better.

Oh, and I was a victim of so called affirmative action. I tried to sue and was told to forget it. Chicago is a whole other country. That was a long time ago. Now they are paying the price- tens of millions of dollars to White firefighters- some of whom are retired.